|
"It's
true that I lost to Richard Nixon in the general
election by a big margin. But that wasn't my
mistake. That was the mistake of the
voters…"
–
Former U.S. Senator George McGovern
Politicians
usually take positions to solidify their key
constituencies during primary campaigns. After
locking in their base, they can afford to express
more moderate views to appeal to the larger body
of voters. The risk they run is alienating the
very people who supported their nomination.
In
the case of the Republican gubernatorial campaign,
Jerry Kilgore never solidified his core
constituency in the GOP. And as the campaign has
unfolded, his move hugging of the center has only
alienated the conservative core even more.
The
drumbeat of disaffection with Kilgore has picked
up in the past few weeks. The candidate angered his pro-life base by refusing to
answer the moderator’s question at a debate with
his opponent, the Democrat candidate Tim Kaine. The
question asked was whether he would ban abortions
in Virginia in the event that the Supreme Court
overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, a possible
outcome given the recent changes in the
composition of the court. Kilgore refused to
answer the question, explaining that he would not
answer hypothetical questions.
Yet,
as the moderator pointed out, Kilgore had earlier
answered a hypothetical question when he said that
he would veto a tax increase in the event the
legislature passed such a bill.
By
trying to appease the middle, Kilgore infuriated
both the pro-life and pro-choice sides. No
conservative Republican candidate can expect to
win an election if the pro-life contingent of his
party stays home on Election Day.
Then
came the 2nd Amendment issue. Jerry Kilgore
received the endorsement of the National Rifle
Association (NRA). But the NRA is a national
organization and not as vocal in state politics as
some indigenous groups like the Virginia Citizens
Defense League (VCDL), the Virginia Gun Owners
Coalition (VGOC), and the Gun Owner’s of America
(GOA), a Virginia-based national organization.
After
securing the NRA endorsement, the Kilgore camp
decided to play it safe and gave a cold shoulder
to the other organizations. Kilgore refused to
complete their candidate surveys and has simply
ignored them throughout the campaign.
The
Kilgore camp fears that their candidate could be
labeled an extremist if he espoused some of the
positions advocated by these groups. Yet by
failing to take a stand either for or against
these positions, Kilgore has infuriated the entire
membership of these organizations—a membership
that is very active in grassroots politics.
Throughout
the campaign, Kilgore also has been snubbing the
anti-tax and smaller-government contingent. Early
on, he attempted to say to this constituency that
he had signed a taxpayer protection pledge.
Kilgore had indeed signed such a pledge when he
ran for Attorney General. But the Americans for
Tax Reform (ATR) pointed out that a specific
pledge was required when a candidate ran for the
office of Governor and that his earlier pledge for
a different office was no longer valid.
Kilgore’s
response has been typical of one wanting to have
his cake and eat it too. He tells the anti-tax
crowd that he’s the only candidate that can be
trusted on taxes, while at the same time winking
at the tax-and-spend contingent promising them
that he will not stand in the way of tax increases
if the voters approve them.
In
that vein, he’s proposing regional authorities
that will have the power to raise taxes, subject
to approval of local referenda. This is nothing
short of stabbing the anti-tax and small
government crowd in the eye. Not only is Kilgore
proposing to increase the bureaucracy, but at the
same time he’s proposing that unelected and
unaccounted bureaucrats should be vested with the
powers to raise taxes.
Kilgore's
proposal to add regional authorities to an already
bloated bureaucracy goes against the core
foundation of our country, which is based on the
principle of a representative republic. For a
conservative candidate to make such a proposal is
nothing short of anathema.
Under
our political system, we elect our representatives
who are then supposed to make the tough governing
decisions — not pass the buck back to the voters
by having bureaucrats call for referenda. What’s
the sense of electing legislators who refuse to
take principled stands?
Kilgore
is banking that all these groups have no choice
but to vote for him, given Tim Kaine’s poor
record on life, taxes, and second amendment
issues. But what Kilgore and his advisors fail to
understand is that they are alienating committed
voters who vote on principle and do not vote for a
candidate just because he represents the lesser of
two evils.
And
herein lays the crux of the problem. Kilgore’s
handlers are going out of their way not to offend
the uncommitted middle, which causes Kilgore not
to take principled stands on key issues. This path
angers committed conservative constituencies that
under ordinary circumstances should have been
Kilgore’s most ardent supporters.
In
the end, if Kilgore loses this election, he’ll
have no one to blame but himself and his campaign
staff. Kilgore has already blown a sizeable lead
in the polls and has allowed his Democrat
opponent—an opponent whose liberal record should
have allowed Kilgore to maintain a double-digit
lead throughout the campaign—to close the gap
and lead a neck-to-neck race, several weeks before
the General Election.
This
is a prime example of what happens to campaigns
that fail to take principled stands on the issues
that matter to the voters—particularly on issues
that matter to the candidate’s core
constituencies.
--
October 17, 2005
|
